PDA

View Full Version : Another Nordyke question


Window_Seat
01-25-2011, 3:17 PM
Counsel, et all:

I commented on something in another thread, with a similar ***umption, and then got to thinking I should have asked first (I do that when I'm under stress and sick with the flu)...

If the Nordyke panel gives strict scrutiny, and rules that gun show marketers cannot be deprived of their ability to hold a gunshow by virtue of the fact that the Scottish Games are allowed to go on, could that establish EP in the sense that anyone someone can go after the LEOSA because of how retired LEOs are afforded RKBA carry rights in all 50 States, but not us?

Can it be safe to think (even if it requires Tylenol) or assume (it still hurts to sit) that RLEOs won't be so willing to give up theirs in the name of keeping us from being afforded ours in all 50?

Is this something we go after once Nodyke, Richards Peruta & Peterson are decided?

Erik.

mdimeo
01-25-2011, 3:41 PM
...could that establish EP in the sense that anyone someone can go after the LEOSA because of how retired LEOs are afforded RKBA carry rights in all 50 States, but not us?...

If there's a right to carry incorporated against the states, then LEOSA doesn't matter, because states have to let us carry.

If there's no right to carry incorporated against the states, then LEOSA doesn't matter, because it's not a right requiring equal protection.

So I conclude LEOSA doesn't matter.

Practically, it's also pretty easy for a judge to say retired law enforcement isn't similarly situated to regular folks, and so equal protection wouldn't apply. The judge would be wrong, but he could probably get away with it.

wildhawker
01-25-2011, 4:07 PM
I agree with mdimeo in that LEOSA isn't the correct path for 50-state carry/reciprocity. We should focus on Thune, politically, and the relevant SAF/CGF/Gura cases, as well as Gray's 14A right to travel case.

Chatterbox
01-25-2011, 6:05 PM
How about YANQ (Yet Another Nordyke Question)? :)

What prevents Nordyke panel from sitting on the decision indefinitely - or near indefinitely - like Palmer vs DC? After all, that case has been "severely overdue" for the last 6 months. Maybe the judges will feel the need to consider it for the next 3-4 years or something.

wildhawker
01-25-2011, 6:20 PM
Damn YANQees.

BtuOAnsuZBY

GettoPhilosopher
01-25-2011, 8:21 PM
I agree with mdimeo in that LEOSA isn't the correct path for 50-state carry/reciprocity. We should focus on Thune, politically, and the relevant SAF/CGF/Gura cases, as well as Gray's 14A right to travel case.

The Thune Amendment: Possibly one of the only good things to come out of my Alma Mater. ;D

Al Norris
01-25-2011, 8:32 PM
For those that think the Thune amendment is good, then you also have to admit that the Boxer bill is just as good. They both stand on the same constitutional grounds: i.e., none.

dantodd
01-25-2011, 8:54 PM
For those that think the Thune amendment is good, then you also have to admit that the Boxer bill is just as good. They both stand on the same constitutional grounds: i.e., none.

Why do you believe that the Thune amendment can't be justified under the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

Texas Boy
01-25-2011, 9:14 PM
How about YANQ (Yet Another Nordyke Question)? :)

What prevents Nordyke panel from sitting on the decision indefinitely - or near indefinitely - like Palmer vs DC? After all, that case has been "severely overdue" for the last 6 months. Maybe the judges will feel the need to consider it for the next 3-4 years or something.

I've been wondering this myself. Can The 9th simply take any case it doesn't like "en banc" and then sit on it indefinitely - thus preventing an appeal to SCOUTS? Is there any legal procedure to force a ruling or appeal it to the SCOUTS because it has been "pocketed" by the 9th?

Window_Seat
01-25-2011, 10:02 PM
Is there any legal procedure to force a ruling or appeal it to the SCOUTS because it has been "pocketed" by the 9th?

If such a process were available (and it could be), the forced ruling would be out of the favor of those initiating the process, would it not? I think all we can do is hope for the best.

ETA: It would probably be nice if something not ruled for more than 180 days (or whatever set time frame) would be mandated to the next higher court to review, but then again, if that were in place, we would likely see a lot more bad case law.

Erik.

Al Norris
01-26-2011, 6:50 AM
Article IV section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Why do you believe that the Thune amendment can't be justified under the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

How is getting a State issued license (of any kind), a public act, record or judicial proceeding?

Your marriage is recognized in other states, not because of some license your State required of you, but because of the Public Act of the ceremony itself. Your divorce is recognized because of the Judicial proceeding held. Your children are recognized as yours, because of the record made of the birth.

Your drivers license is recognized by the other States because of reciprocity compacts made between the individual States. Same as with CCW permits/licenses.

So I ask, where is the Federal authority to regulate a State issued drivers license? Beauticians license?

How about Doctors and Attorneys? They can't simply move to another State and open up a practice. They must be admitted by the other States Board (Medical or Bar).

There is no grant of authority to the Federal Government to demand one State recognize the licensing practices of another State.

Gray Peterson
01-26-2011, 7:24 AM
How is getting a State issued license (of any kind), a public act, record or judicial proceeding?

Your marriage is recognized in other states, not because of some license your State required of you, but because of the Public Act of the ceremony itself. Your divorce is recognized because of the Judicial proceeding held. Your children are recognized as yours, because of the record made of the birth.

Your drivers license is recognized by the other States because of reciprocity compacts made between the individual States. Same as with CCW permits/licenses.

So I ask, where is the Federal authority to regulate a State issued drivers license? Beauticians license?

How about Doctors and Attorneys? They can't simply move to another State and open up a practice. They must be admitted by the other States Board (Medical or Bar).

There is no grant of authority to the Federal Government to demand one State recognize the licensing practices of another State.

Al,

Let me turn this right around on you. What authority does the federal government have to tell the states of New York and Massachusetts that their handgun possession laws (both states absolutely forbid handgun possession in your vehicle without a license issued by the state of New York or Mass) are inapplicable to travelers?

Here's a hint: It doesn't come from Article IV, Section II's full faith and credit clause.

Do you seriously support New York throwing gun owners who are traveling from New Hampshire to Pennsylvania and having a handgun locked up in their trunk into prison?

sholling
01-26-2011, 8:30 AM
For those that think the Thune amendment is good, then you also have to admit that the Boxer bill is just as good. They both stand on the same constitutional grounds: i.e., none.
You keep forgetting about the 14th Amendment and the power of congress to force states allow people to enjoy their constitutional rights. Or perhaps you think it would be okay if California allowed slave markets or declared Islam the official state religion, or shut down all opposition newspapers and websites?

J.D.Allen
01-26-2011, 11:55 AM
How is getting a State issued license (of any kind), a public act, record or judicial proceeding?

Your marriage is recognized in other states, not because of some license your State required of you, but because of the Public Act of the ceremony itself. Your divorce is recognized because of the Judicial proceeding held. Your children are recognized as yours, because of the record made of the birth.

Your drivers license is recognized by the other States because of reciprocity compacts made between the individual States. Same as with CCW permits/licenses.

So I ask, where is the Federal authority to regulate a State issued drivers license? Beauticians license?

How about Doctors and Attorneys? They can't simply move to another State and open up a practice. They must be admitted by the other States Board (Medical or Bar).

There is no grant of authority to the Federal Government to demand one State recognize the licensing practices of another State.

Driver licenses, doctors and attorneys licenses, and beauticians licenses do not invole the practice of a right protected in the U.S. constitution. CCW's do. (even if it isn't yet formally recognized as such) Because of the 2A, this is a federal issue.

dantodd
01-26-2011, 12:03 PM
How is getting a State issued license (of any kind), a public act, record or judicial proceeding?

Your marriage is recognized in other states, not because of some license your State required of you, but because of the Public Act of the ceremony itself. Your divorce is recognized because of the Judicial proceeding held. Your children are recognized as yours, because of the record made of the birth.

Your drivers license is recognized by the other States because of reciprocity compacts made between the individual States. Same as with CCW permits/licenses.

So I ask, where is the Federal authority to regulate a State issued drivers license? Beauticians license?

How about Doctors and Attorneys? They can't simply move to another State and open up a practice. They must be admitted by the other States Board (Medical or Bar).

There is no grant of authority to the Federal Government to demand one State recognize the licensing practices of another State.

The list you provide are all demonstrations of a particular skill set. a CCW is much more like a wedding or divorce, it is a statement that you wish to exercise some constitutional right. While some CCWs do require a class or skill demonstration that is not what the permit itself actually means. It means that you are not barred from exercising that RIGHT and that you have proactively chosen to do so.

A driver's license, Med. Lic., Bar membership, etc. are very different in that they are privs. granted and are not rights which are automatic barring governmental action.

Gray Peterson
01-26-2011, 12:14 PM
Driver licenses, doctors and attorneys licenses, and beauticians licenses do not invole the practice of a right protected in the U.S. constitution. CCW's do. (even if it isn't yet formally recognized as such) Because of the 2A, this is a federal issue.

Not to mention that A) There is no state which disallows driver license recognition or refuses to recognize, B) Doctors are not forbidden from practicing their craft at all in other states, such as emergency situations and C) Lawyers are not barred from applying for bar admission either fully or pro hac vice with the permission of another local attorney (see Gura's cases in states outside of CA, VA, DC). I'd love for the ability to apply for a carry license in New York State, even if it mean someone "vouching" for me in a similar way as a out of state lawyer can practice law specific to a case....

wash
01-26-2011, 12:18 PM
I want my non-resident Washington District of Columbia CCW license...

Al Norris
01-26-2011, 12:49 PM
Instead of continuing to derail this thread, how about if I make a new thread to detail my thoughts, more fully? Tonight, after I get off work. Good enough?

Blackhawk556
01-26-2011, 2:06 PM
90 days and counting

i'll keep waiting

Gray Peterson
01-26-2011, 3:02 PM
Instead of continuing to derail this thread, how about if I make a new thread to detail my thoughts, more fully? Tonight, after I get off work. Good enough?

Sure. I'd like for you, however, to answer my question about FOPA's transportation provisions.

Mstrty
02-02-2011, 1:41 PM
Really? No opinion yet? What is the maximum time they can hold onto their decision?

NightOwl
02-02-2011, 1:51 PM
AFAIK, they can hold forever and there is no process in place to force a decision, as odd as that seems. I'd love to be wrong about this.

Gray Peterson
02-02-2011, 2:05 PM
AFAIK, they can hold forever and there is no process in place to force a decision, as odd as that seems. I'd love to be wrong about this.

Could be, but I don't see it with this particular panel.

Let me also point out that only a month ago, Chester was released and was brought to the attention of the Nordyke panel. It's possible that the delay of more than 95 days (the first Nordyke decision post-Heller was 95 days) is due to the court analyzing Chester and applying it to the facts of Nordyke. It's actually a good thing, considering that the panel got Nordyke wrong the first time around and now with McDonald they have a good opportunity to "lay down the law of the 2nd amendment" in the 9th Circuit, using Chester's good reasoning.

I keep telling people that Nordyke is more than just a "gun show" case. It really is the lynchpin case for anything 2A related in California. If we win, we win really big and it'll help us downticket.

NightOwl
02-02-2011, 2:16 PM
I try to be patient, but ffs, that case has been in the works for SOOOoooo long. It's difficult to remain patient about it.

Gray Peterson
02-02-2011, 2:22 PM
I try to be patient, but ffs, that case has been in the works for SOOOoooo long. It's difficult to remain patient about it.

Try being Sally Nordyke. Kwitcher*****in.

Wherryj
02-02-2011, 2:29 PM
Driver licenses, doctors and attorneys licenses, and beauticians licenses do not invole the practice of a right protected in the U.S. constitution. CCW's do. (even if it isn't yet formally recognized as such) Because of the 2A, this is a federal issue.

This is true, but somehow we are at the point where states are allowed to require said licenses to exercise our right. I suspect that the licensing argument above will trump the Constitution if this were to head to a courtroom. The Constitution seems to be the last thing that the courts or legislature take into account.

yakmon
02-02-2011, 3:26 PM
:twoweeks: someone had to do it!

Mstrty
02-02-2011, 5:30 PM
someone had to do it!

No! Not really! That joke has been played:43:

safewaysecurity
02-02-2011, 5:49 PM
I have a good feeling this case is going to go well for us =) especially since looking at the judges history and the briefs and legal arguments. Is Kozinski our best buddy in tis case?

Gray Peterson
02-02-2011, 5:55 PM
I have a good feeling this case is going to go well for us =) especially since looking at the judges history and the briefs and legal arguments. Is Kozinski our best buddy in tis case?

Kozinski is not on this panel. It's O'Scannlain, Gould, and Alarcon.

chewy352
02-02-2011, 6:22 PM
Seems like a win win for us no matter how they rule. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/hint-supreme-court-rejects-rulings-row-west-coast-bench/

The Supreme Court may be sending a message to one of the country's most liberal appeals courts, unanimously overturning five consecutive cases out of the 9th Circuit in less than a week.

dantodd
02-02-2011, 7:07 PM
if I could pick the opinion's author it would be Gould.

Window_Seat
02-02-2011, 7:09 PM
Seems like a win win for us no matter how they rule. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/hint-supreme-court-rejects-rulings-row-west-coast-bench/

Yes, and...

Nordyke III oral argument audio at 25:51 into the recording:

Judge: "McDonald tells us not only is the Heller right preserved it applies to the states, but it really emphasized the fact that the Second Amendment is a substantial, fundamental right, suggesting as we've seen in some of these other post McDonald cases, strict scrutiny perhaps ought to be applied, why shouldn't we apply strict scrutiny to this ordinance?"

Opposing Counsel:
"The fundamental rights cases do not pronounce a rule that we use strict scrutiny in the context of all fundamental rights, even when strict scrutiny is used, there are lots of variations on the forms..."

Judge:
"Sure, there has to be a showing on some burden on the right, isn't that correct?"

Opposing Counsel:
"There has to be a showing of a direct burden on the right, and as I tried to point out, here, we have at most an indirect burden on the right to purchase a gun, it makes it less convenient... We... We.. We only... wah... We have a situation in which strict scrutiny is not compatible with the court pointing out that there are several presumptively valid categories of regulation that survives Second Amendment."

Erik; hopeful.

Purple K
02-02-2011, 10:56 PM
All things come to those that wait.

tabrisnet
02-02-2011, 10:59 PM
Including death. :rolleyes:

wildhawker
02-02-2011, 11:09 PM
Yes, and...

Nordyke III oral argument audio at 25:51 into the recording:

Erik; hopeful.

Consider, however, that the panel previously said that the ordinance was not violative even if strict scrutiny were to be applied.

If they reverse and a "strict scrutiny" analysis creates a different outcome, it would be tantamount to admitting that their 'strict scrutiny', isn't. McDonald does provide some cover for them to go farther than they did previously, though I'm not convinced any judge but Gould wants to.

Accordingly, I think we may very well see a similar outcome in the upcoming decision but with more tangible boundaries placed on sensitive places.

Kenpo Joe
02-03-2011, 6:58 AM
I'll wait and see before I start celebrating. I'll either be hoisting a few beers to those who did all of the fighting(in court) or crying in the beer. I hope we win.

Back on mute. :chris:

ddestruel
02-03-2011, 8:11 AM
Consider, however, that the panel previously said that the ordinance was not violative even if strict scrutiny were to be applied.

If they reverse and a "strict scrutiny" analysis creates a different outcome, it would be tantamount to admitting that their 'strict scrutiny', isn't. McDonald does provide some cover for them to go farther than they did previously, though I'm not convinced any judge but Gould wants to.

Accordingly, I think we may very well see a similar outcome in the upcoming decision but with more tangible boundaries placed on sensitive places.


i'll be pleasantly shocked if they extend the previous ruling, some clearer definitions of sensitive places will be nice for the ccw challenges. It will be interesting though with chester being considered on how they will inturpret strict scrutiny application against law abiding citizens. We can only speculate and hold our breath

IrishPirate
02-12-2011, 2:00 PM
how much time is left in the Two Weeks 'til decision? The gunwiki said it's expected by the end of Q1 2011....that's the end of March right??????